I find the OP question interesting. There is surely (provably, by the theorem of Nash) an exact GTO answer (very likely to be between 80% and 90%, but nobody knows exactly the correct number, it might even include a few limps).

Equally surely, adjustments should be made to the opponents ability (which is going beyond GTO), and also to the own ability to play well postflop. If playing versus a good aggro, it's not that comfortable to proceed with a questionable draw with a very marginal hand on the flop if you are check-raised. Against very good players (aggressive or not), therefore, I'd play slightly fewer hands than GTO would dictate.

Originally posted by YohanN7
Raising 100% is not ok in the first two rounds either versus nits (unless they are totally unaware of what is happening), since you want to keep them nitty.

real nits wont be aware that you are raising constantly. tbh i raise about 90% to 100% everytime i play husngfl and i get away with it, given that its 1.5s and 3.5s .. and i have an ROI of 23%

if higher stakes im sure it wont be 100% good to raise 100% but given i have some experience in these stakes i can vouch for it you will be fine raising 100% against almost anyone during the two or three first blind levels. no matter what you think yohan. in my experience it works. Yes nits can get mad at you and try to adjust but given they are nits by default when they try to open up wider they are entering a territory not known to them. Which leads to them making more mistakes which if you are experienced enough can take advantage of. Id say pushing nits to not stay nits is actually only an advantage to you. Yes it might give more variance but it can also lead to them making mistakes you can exploit

Originally posted by YohanN7
Raising 100% is not ok in the first two rounds either versus nits (unless they are totally unaware of what is happening), since you want to keep them nitty.

real nits wont be aware that you are raising constantly. tbh i raise about 90% to 100% everytime i play husngfl and i get away with it, given that its 1.5s and 3.5s .. and i have an ROI of 23%

if higher stakes im sure it wont be 100% good to raise 100% but given i have some experience in these stakes i can vouch for it you will be fine raising 100% against almost anyone during the two or three first blind levels. no matter what you think yohan. in my experience it works. Yes nits can get mad at you and try to adjust but given they are nits by default when they try to open up wider they are entering a territory not known to them. Which leads to them making more mistakes which if you are experienced enough can take advantage of. Id say pushing nits to not stay nits is actually only an advantage to you. Yes it might give more variance but it can also lead to them making mistakes you can exploit

Yes, you are right. Also, bet 100% of the time when your opponent checks - and raise on every single scare card. Did I mention never fold? Since one mistake doesn't hamper your chances of winning at all - how could making all possible mistakes decrease your winning chances???? Go ahead - 100%

Originally posted by YohanN7
Raising 100% is not ok in the first two rounds either versus nits (unless they are totally unaware of what is happening), since you want to keep them nitty.

real nits wont be aware that you are raising constantly. tbh i raise about 90% to 100% everytime i play husngfl and i get away with it, given that its 1.5s and 3.5s .. and i have an ROI of 23%

if higher stakes im sure it wont be 100% good to raise 100% but given i have some experience in these stakes i can vouch for it you will be fine raising 100% against almost anyone during the two or three first blind levels. no matter what you think yohan. in my experience it works. Yes nits can get mad at you and try to adjust but given they are nits by default when they try to open up wider they are entering a territory not known to them. Which leads to them making more mistakes which if you are experienced enough can take advantage of. Id say pushing nits to not stay nits is actually only an advantage to you. Yes it might give more variance but it can also lead to them making mistakes you can exploit

Yes, you are right. Also, bet 100% of the time when your opponent checks - and raise on every single scare card. Did I mention never fold? Since one mistake doesn't hamper your chances of winning at all - how could making all possible mistakes decrease your winning chances???? Go ahead - 100%

stop with the bashing when people disagree with you yohan. really dont go down that road again. we have tried that once remember ? so back off and just accept other people think differently than you and have other experiences than you.

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by YohanN7: 29.11.2013 15:02.

Yes. But having different opinion doesn't automatically make you (or me) right. You bash me whenever I ask about a single exploitative play in a specific situation versus a selected opponent in the hand evaluation forums (whether I'm right or wrong). Now you go 100% exploitative, and I'm the one telling you it makes you unbalanced.

To the issue. We can discuss can't we
? I think you can increase your nice ROI a bit more by dropping the 100% slightly. Here are my reasons:

The reason not to open 100%, as I see it, is that if the opponent catches you playing 52o even once, it will change the complexion of the game. In the same fashion, if you fold even once preflop he will notice this, thinking you are a rock. He will see this. He will not count your folds, but he will know if you play 100% or not. He will not notice a showdown where you have 97o, but he will notice 52o, and that will piss him off - he will peg you as a maniac and will desperatly want to beat you.

So, by dropping just a couple of hands (say 95% instead of 100%) the first few rounds, your chances of keeping him timid has gone up. You lose perhaps 5 chips in EV (out of 1500 in starting stacks), which pretty much doesn't matter. What matters is that you don't want him to make hero call downs for his remaining 800 when the blinds are huge. And, you certainly do not want him to open 85% instead of his normal 60% (or whatever). But this is what he will do - as a human defense mechanism - not necessarily by poker reasoning.

Here is an example of a more extreme nature: Yesterday, I played a few of those SnG's. My opponent truly sucked. I told him he didn't play well. Then, a few hands later, I bluffed in a big pot. I had read the cards correctly. The problem is that my opponent rebluffed me - and showed! I have to admit his rebluff was a very good play. He read the situation correctly, not only the cards. I'm sure he wouldn't make it if I hadn't pissed him off.

The above isn't the same thing, but it is related. Keep your opponent happy, not in a mood that accidentally makes him play well.

Of course, you can turn this reasoning around. You want to let him know you open 100% to have him play in a way he is uncomfortable with. I can see reasons to do this if you like meta-gaming. That's another story.

Originally posted by Boomer2k10
Don't forget you're in a rakeless environment

So what's breakeven in a cash game HUHU is a MAJOR winner in a HUHU SNG

I'd say 100% is definitely closer to the mark than 80% and I'm pretty sure most GTO bots play any 2 HUHU

Not to sure about want you say at all. One hundred per cent (100%) raising is the issue, or equivalently, not raising 100%. Your references to cash games are totally irrelevant - as are your references to a rakeless environment.

I agree that 100% raising is closer to the optimal mark than 80% raising if the opponent is an absolutely total nit, but otherwise I absolutely disagree with you for the reasons stated above. Even with a total nit, don't make it 100%. You will piss him off.

Being a rakeless environment is a MASSIVE issue and it's why you have to be tighter in cash games.

Saying it's irrelevant is like saying the rake difference between micros and high stakes is irrelevant or the difference between a 1/3 blind structure and a 2/3 blind strucutre is irrelevant. It''s just wrong. Rake makes the overall pots smaller which means the EV of each hand decreases, this means that what would be breakeven hands in a SNG would be losing hands in a cash game. THis dictates that you can play looser in a SNG

Do you honestly think a nit's going to realise the difference between you raising 90% and 100% from the button in any modest amount of time? He probably thinks you're too loose playing 80% of hands. Even if he does see the difference do you think he's magically going to outplay you post-flop because of it?

If he starts 3-betting (assuming he doesn't have a 3-betting range anyway) then play your hand appropriately and realise his calling range is probably hideously weak now.

The "I don't want to piss off my opponent" line always gets me. You've noticed an exploitable tendency and you're not going to take advantage of it for fear of causing offense to your opponent where he might change his game to one he's not comfortable with? It's the same as not raising strong hands becasue you don't want to "lose action". It points to a weakness in your game, not taking advantage of your opponent's game.

Don't think you should be playing HUHU if you're not going to play exploitatively vs the vast majority of players. If your opponent makes a "pissed off" adjustment it's more than likely going to be a bad one vs your range so I'm really not concerned. The only reason to be worried about a "pissed off" adjustment is that the game you play is only profitable against him when he's playing in an exact way.

To answer your other points:

1) Re 52o. If you're opponent makes a MASSIVE shift in his game due to seeing 1 hand of yours then it's not him that benefits. In the coaching last night there was a definitive pattern in my opponent's play. I caught him 3 barrel bluffing on 3 occasions (Once with KJ-high) and he caught me bluffing twice when checked to.

His reaction?

He started inducing with every single made hand and stopped bluffing completely. I don't think I need to tell you how this is a terrible adjustment to me even though he could feel there's a connection (i.e. that I'm a calling station who bet's when checked to with any 2)

This post has been edited 3 time(s), it was last edited by Avataren: 30.11.2013 13:40.

Originally posted by YohanN7
Avataren, have you had a chat with Boomer b t w before his one-mile reply?

Do you want me to put into public the conversations we had via Scype? I can do that, and you don't look very good in these. They were prior to my going berserk against you in another thread.

Never mind that. I will not do it ever. Just tired of being bazzokad by you.

Boomer, your starting arguments don't really apply. We all know we are playing a fucking SnG. Rake is paid, play looser - so? The rest I'll respond to in due time unless you ban me.

nope i haven't spoken to that lazy bastard for a few days
hes always so busy with his work

and if you think i would get affected by threats you are dead wrong
I don't care what you do or not. you can go ahead and post everything i have ever said to you. Who cares ? And if you continue with threats I will not tolerate it any longer..

besides everyone who knows me on these boards know how big of an evil bastard i am
So whatever i have said to you they wouldn't be surprised about.